Forum:COTM disaster/change to *OTM voting
COTM * I messed up. Big time. CM4S and Jeyo actually tied last month, and I didn't realise this until I saw a note on Jeyo's talk page. Basically what happened is I didn't see Berrybrick's oppose in Jeyo's section when I put it through. So... any suggestions as to what to do? Sorry to both users concerned for this, and to everyone else affected. 04:40, August 2, 2012 (UTC) :* I suggest that CM4S also gets the award; we tie for the award as we tied in the voting. It would also add an unorthodox lining to Brickipedia and make it more interesting, small as the point may be. On a slightly different note, I would suggest that the "Oppose" section be taken out of Cotm, Rotm and BotM entirely. My reason for suggesting this is simple: someone can give a user two votes by supporting one and opposing another. Besides, those awards are there to praise people, not tear them down. If someone wants to oppose, they should simply support the rivaling nominee. ::* I think that a User who hasn't voted, should vote as the tie-breaker for either CM4S or Jeyo. If Jeyo is chosen, he will keep his CoTM and CM4S Nomination this month will stay. If CM4S wins, Jeyo's CoTM will be removed, CM4S' request here will be removed, and Jeyo can (optionally) be nominated for this month. :::* But July is over and the results were tied. I think we should both win out of that. * Upon looking at Berrybrick's reason for opposing, personally I'd like to see that retrospectively struck- in a three-way contest, voting against one user just to give the others a lead is the same as voting twice, which you can't do, I don't think this is a legitimate way to vote. 06:17, August 2, 2012 (UTC) :* This ^ I personally also agree with Jeyo's suggestion about removing oppose sections entirely... Although that could mean that admins will have to use SNOW with regard to some nominations by people who don't know what they're doing. *I don't really think it matters. Jeyo's vote was up first, and he got 11 votes before me. He gets it this month. If I win this month, it'd be a great B-Day present (24th) to me. :D :* @CM4S Are you sure? @Cligra what does SNOW stand for? ::* "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." :::* Ah, okay. Change to *OTM voting * Jeyo brings up a good point above- do we really need an oppose section? Usually, when someone does something evil, people tend to strike their supporting votes and vote for someone else anyway. 06:17, August 2, 2012 (UTC) :* It's a good idea, but I don't get the "If someone wants to oppose, they should simply support the rivaling nominee." part... Why would you support someone when you are trying to oppose them? ::* No, I mean if you want to oppose someone, just vote for the other person. :::* Edit Conflict: Never mind, I misunderstood :P * Jeyo, great idea! This would totally be awesome. 14:26, August 2, 2012 (UTC)Sonofhades101 :* Thanks :D ::* Yarr, what I said above. * Sure. ~ CJC 19:00, August 4, 2012 (UTC) * I think the idea is a good one. People starting new things for the first time are not usually 100% confident or feeling easy with the new stuff. And users that have made significant edits, yet have only been here for a short time, may feel intimidated by opposers in a B/C/RotM awarding, and may think that the opposing users have something against them. 07:34, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :* I'm going to agree with Charge on this one. In my opinion an oppose section isn't really needed unless its for something major like a nomination for Admin rights or a nomination of a Featured article. - 23:48, August 9, 2012 (UTC) * Remove the oppose section. If you don't want someone to win vote for the other person. (that is if their is another person) 17:33, August 11, 2012 (UTC) :* Yeah, and if you don't think the other nominee should get it either, then nominate someone who you think should.